THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILSON DREU alias "ADANG
DREU," accused-appellant.

D E C I S I O N

MENDOZA, J.:

This is an appeal from the decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 51, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, finding accused-appellant
Wilson "Adang" Dreu guilty of rape and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the victim Josephine Guevarra
the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages and the costs of suit.

The information[1] against accused-appellant and his co-accused Minda
Dollesin reads:

The undersigned
Assistant Provincial Fiscal accuses Adang Dreu as principal by direct
participation and Minda Dollesin as principal by indispensable cooperation,
both residents of Rangas, Juban, Sorsogon, of the crime of Rape, committed as
follows:

That on or about
the 11th day of May, 1986, in Barangay Rangas, Municipality of Juban, Province
of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused Adang Dreu, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, by force and intimidation while Josephine Guevarra was
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious have sexual intercourse with said
Josephine Guevarra, against her will and consent, and with the indispensable
cooperation of Minda Dollesin, to the damage and prejudice of said Josephine
Guevarra.

The facts are as follows:

On the evening of May 10, 1986, Josephine
Guevarra and several companions went to a dance in Rangas, Juban, Sorsogon. At
around one oclock in the morning of May 11, 1986, Josephine, with her aunt
Leonora Diche and some friends, decided to go home in Mabini, Casiguran,
Sorsogon, about two kilometers from Rangas.[2] On their way, Minda Dollesin, Josephines close
friend of two years, invited her to pass by the formers (Mindas) house.[3] Josephine did not think twice about it and accepted
Mindas invitation. So the two proceeded to Mindas house, while the rest went
their separate ways. Instead of going to Mindas house, however, the two went
to the house of a certain Victor Guerrero where Minda had a small store. Minda
said she wanted to get something from her store. Minda went inside the store
and told Josephine to wait outside. Moments later, a man whom Josephine
recognized as accused-appellant, came out of the store and immediately covered
her head and face with a jacket. Josephine instantly felt nauseated as the
jacket smelled of rugby. Accused-appellant went behind her and, with his left
hand, held both of Josephines hands behind her, while his right hand held a
bladed weapon at Josephines right side. She was then dragged a few meters from
the store and led to a grassy area where she was made to lie on the ground.
Accused-appellant then removed the jacket from Josephines head and removed her
pants.

Josephine wanted to fight back, but she felt
weak and afraid. She tried to talk accused-appellant out of his design, telling
him "that it could be done in a good or nice way,"[4] but accused-appellant paid no heed to her pleas, as
he took off his pants. At this point, Josephine lost consciousness. When she
came to about 30 minutes later, she found her private parts bleeding. She saw
accused-appellant put on his pants and then leave. Josephine then put on her
own pants and went to the waiting shed by the roadside.[5] She was weeping when her brother, Jessie Guevarra,
and the latters companions found her. It was about 1:30 in the morning. Her
brother and his companions were going home. Jessie asked Josephine what
happened to her but, as the latter was about to recount her ordeal, Minda
Dollesin arrived together with Panny[6] Dreu, accused-appellants brother. Minda told them
that they should not involve her in the incident.[7] Jessie then took Josephine home. Later that morning,
Josephine told her brother what had happened to her. Jessie then reported the
matter to their father, Pablo Guevarra, who lost no time in reporting the
incident to the authorities.[8]

On May 12, 1986, Dr. Erlinda Orense,
Municipal Health Officer of Juban, Sorsogon, examined Josephine and found
"vaginal laceration at 3 oclock and 9 oclock position . . . which admits
one finger with ease." [9]

On May 31, 1986, Josephine executed a sworn
statement[10] which formed the basis of a criminal complaint[11] against accused-appellant and Minda Dollesin. After
preliminary investigation, an information was filed charging both accused with
the crime of rape. At the arraignment held on June 9, 1987, only Minda Dollesin
was present. She pleaded "not guilty" to the charge[12] and, upon her motion, she was tried separately.

After the prosecution presented its evidence
and rested its case, counsel for Minda Dollesin, with leave of court, filed a
demurrer to evidence.[13] In an order,[14] dated December 8, 1989, the trial court found that
the evidence against Minda Dollesin was insufficient and ordered the case
archived pending the arrest of accused-appellant. Accused-appellant was finally
arrested on February 2, 1991. He was arraigned and he pleaded "not
guilty," whereupon, he was tried.

On September 18, 1995, the trial court
rendered its decision[15] finding accused-appellant guilty of rape. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:

ACCORDINGLY, the
accused Wilson alias Adang Dreu is convicted of Rape defined and penalized
under paragraph 1 Art. 338 as amended by Republic Act No. 4111 and sentenced
him to Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify the offended party the amount of
P30,000.00 for moral damages and costs of suit.

Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant
assigns the following errors:

I.....THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT
ACCUSED-APPELLANT USED FORCE AND INTIMIDATION WHEN IN FACT THE SEXUAL
INTERCOURSE WAS WITH THE MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT AND
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

II.....THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT
AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT DESPITE THE VARIOUS
INCONSISTENCIES AND CONTRADICTIONS IN HER TESTIMONY ON SOME MATERIAL AND VITAL
POINTS.

III.....THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE WEAK EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION
AGAINST HIM.

The appeal has no merit.

First. Accused-appellant claims he and Josephine were lovers and that what
happened in the early morning of May 11, 1986 was consensual. He claims that
there is no evidence that he used force and intimidation in having sexual
intercourse with Josephine.[16]

This is without basis. Accused-appellant
failed to present any evidence to support his claim that he and Josephine were
sweethearts.[17]It appears that shortly after the incident,
accused-appellant offered to marry Josephine but the latter spurned the offer,
declaring "[she] did not like him to be [her] husband."[18] Instead, Josephine tenaciously pursued her case
against accused-appellant.[19]

The "sweetheart defense" has often
been raised in rape cases but has rarely been upheld as the defense failed to
come up with convincing proof. Indeed, accused-appellant bears the burden of
proving that he and complainant had an affair which naturally led to a sexual
relationship.[20] As we held in People v. Barcelona:[21]

. . . No young
Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit she had been raped unless that
was the truth. Even in these modern times, this principle still holds true.

Besides, even if
indeed accused-appellant and complainant are sweethearts, this fact does not
necessarily negate rape. "A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex
against her will. Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a
fiancee and, worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. Love is
not a license for lust."

Nor can we sustain accused-appellants claim
that there was no force or intimidation employed by him in this case. In People
v. Fraga,[22] we held:

The test is
whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of
the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused,
the threat would be carried out. Where resistance would be futile, offering
none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault. It is not
necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death or sustained physical
injuries in the hands of the rapist. It is enough if the intercourse takes
place against her will or if she yields because of genuine apprehension of harm
to her if she did not do so. Indeed, the law does not impose upon a rape victim
the burden of proving resistance.

In this case, accused-appellant covered
Josephines head with a jacket laced with rugby which made her dizzy, making it
easy for him to drag her to a secluded area and abuse her. He poked a knife at
her side. The nausea and fear not only prevented Josephine from putting up a
resistance, but even caused her to lose consciousness.

It is of no moment either that the medical
certificate fails to show that Josephine suffered any contusion or abrasion.
Although the results of a medical examination may be considered strong evidence
to prove that the victim was raped, such evidence is not indispensable in
establishing accused-appellants guilt or innocence. In People v. Docena, we
stated:[23]

That there was no medical examination report
presented, sign of resistance during the actual copulation, or proof of
violence committed against MARGIE does not detract from our conclusion that she
was raped. A medical examination is not indispensable in a prosecution for
rape. Medical findings or proof of injuries, virginity, or an allegation of the
exact time and date of the commission of the crime are not essential in a
prosecution for rape. . .

. . . [The
defenses contention is not bolstered by the victims] failure to put up a
strong resistance or shout for help, nor by the fact that there was no sign of
force and intimidation, which should be viewed in the context of the victims
perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the offense. It is
subjective; thus, lack of physical resistance cannot be considered consent.

Second. Accused-appellant claims that Josephines testimony is full of
inconsistencies and contradictions which render the same incredible and negates
any moral certainty as to his guilt. In his brief, he points out the following
inconsistencies and contradictions in Josephines testimony:

1.02 At the
back of the house of Victor Guerrero, 30 meters from the road (TSN, Feb.
17, 1992, p. 44).

. . . .

2. Where
alleged rapist came from:

2.01. A man
suddenly appeared from behind. (TSN, Feb. 17, 1988, p. 9)

2.02. A man
suddenly went out of the door and she glanced at him. (TSN, February 17, 1992,
p. 27).

3. Alleged
force and intimidation employed

3.01. Accused was
holding a Batangas knife-like instrument with his right hand which the victim
felt but was not able to see. (TSN, February 17, 1992, p. 10)

(...later this was
changed)

3.02. . . . it was
a Batangas knife because it has a handle and it could be folded; that she was
looking at this knife while she was being dragged. (TSN, February 17, 1992, p.
38)

. . . .

4. While being
raped:

4.01. Victims
aunt and other companions went ahead to their respective houses. (TSN, February
17, 1992, p. 61)

4.02. Victims
companion including her aunt were at the waiting shed but left when stoned were
hurried at the shed; that she heard the sound of stones hurried; that when
she was being raped the shed was stones and she could hear the thuds of the
stones on the walls. (TSN, August 18, 1988, pp. 22-23)

However in another
part of her testimony

4.03. she stated
that after the accused-appellant removed her panty, she did not know anymore
what happened because she lost her consciousness already. (TSN, February
17, 1992, p. 14)

. . . .

5. After the
alleged rape:

5.01 After she was
raped, complainant cried because the accused-appellant left her then she
provided to the waiting shed. (TSN, August 18, 1988, p. 5)

5.02. Her brother
Jessie came upon her at the side of the road where she sat; (TSN,
February 17, 1992, p. 15) she was alone which prompted her brother to
ask her what happened (TSN supra, p. 17) she told her brother what happened.
He got angry. Later Minda Dollesin came out from her house with cousin Panit
Dreu; (TSN, supra, p. 18)

This declaration
of the complainant is very much inconsistent with the statement of her brother
Jessie Guevarra, to wit:

5.03. When Jessie
arrived at the waiting shed, he saw her sister crying; she was sitting
at the said waiting shed with two other companion, Adan Dreau and Panit
Dreau; he asked her what happened; she did not say anything; the two men
left for a while and returned to the shed with Minda Dollesin; Jessie and her
sister then proceeded home. (TSN, January 24, 1989, pp. 3-6)

Jessie Guevarras
testimony was likewise contradicted when he again took the witness stand

5.04. On May 11, 1
986 around midnight, she was at the waiting shed of Rangos, Juban, Sorsogon.
When he was about to leave met his sister Josephine near the road crying;
she was squatting along the road, he then brought her home. (TSN, May
10, 1993, pp. 3-4, emphasis added).[24]

The inconsistencies in Josephines
testimony, however, concern minor matters and, therefore, are inconsequential.
They do not in any way render her account less credible. Moreover, there is no
showing of any ulterior motive on the part of Josephine to testify falsely
against accused-appellant. We note that she was called to the witness stand
four (4) times in a span of seven (7) years, viz.: February 17, 1988,
August 8, 1988, February 17, 1992 and March 6, 1995. All throughout, she never
wavered on the material points of her testimony: that she went to the dance on
the night of May 10, 1986; that she was on her way home from the dance when her
friend, Minda Dollesin, asked her to go with her to Mindas house; that instead
of going to Minda Dollesins house, they went to the house of a certain Victor
Guerrero on the pretext that Minda wanted to get something from her store in
that house; that, while waiting for Minda Dollesin by the door,
accused-appellant came out of the house, covered her head and face with a
jacket that smelled of rugby, held a knife at her side, and pulled her to a
grassy area behind the house; that accused-appellant then took the jacket off
her head, undressed her by pulling down her pants and underpants; that
accused-appellant then took off his own pants and went on top of her; that
because of fear and nausea, she lost consciousness; that when she came to, she
felt some pain in her private parts and saw that she was bleeding; and that
when accused-appellant had left, she gathered strength to put on her clothes
and walk to the roadside where she was found by her brother Jessie Guevarra.

Indeed, accused-appellant points to the
inconsistency in the testimonies of Josephine and her brother, Jessie, but his
counsel never cross-examined Jessie nor required him to explain the supposed
inconsistencies. In any event, we cannot consider the same as sufficient to
justify disregarding Josephines testimony altogether and sustain
accused-appellants claims. Well-settled is the rule that "inconsistencies
on minor details of the testimony of a witness serve to strengthen his
credibility as they are badges of truth rather than an indicia of falsehood."[25] In People v. Arafiles,[26] we held:

We have ruled that the protracted
examination of a young girl, not accustomed to public trial, could produce
contradictions which nevertheless would not destroy her credibility.
Paradoxically, they may be badges of spontaneity, indicating that the witness
was unrehearsed. . .

When there is no evidence to show any
improper motive on the part of the complainant to testify against the accused
or to falsely implicate him in the commission of a crime, the logical
conclusion is that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.

Third. Finally, accused-appellants guilt is established by the fact that he
offered to marry Josephine after the incident was reported to the authorities.
This was testified to by Josephine,[27] her father, Pablo Guevarra,[28] her mother, Wennie Guevarra,[29] and by accused-appellant himself.[30] As a rule in rape cases, an offer of marriage is an
admission of guilt.[31]

Nor is accused-appellants position aided by
the fact that, after his offer of marriage was rejected, he left their town and
only came back after his co-accused, Minda Dollesin, had been acquitted. His
offer of marriage was apparently only an attempt to evade prosecution and
clearly makes his leaving town an incident of flight. This is evidence of
guilt.[32]

The trial court ordered accused-appellant to
pay Josephine moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00 only. This award must
be increased. Currently, moral damages for rape is fixed at P50,000.00.[33] In addition, accused-appellant must be ordered to pay
civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, consistent with the recent rulings
of this court.[34]

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is ordered to pay P50,000.00 as moral
damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to Josephine Guevarra.